Do you have Oh, welcome everyone. It this is the town of Cadam zoning board of appeals meeting. It is September 25th, 2025. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the
acts of 2025 extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every
effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately assess access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder, persons who'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508-945-4410 conference ID127176140
pound or join the meeting via the Microsoft Teams link on the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Cadam TV. But despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access.
a a post um of this actually we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with town policy. The public can speak to any issue, hearing or business item on the agenda when recognized by the chair. We start all
meetings with a roll call vote of all members. Then we ask if anyone is participating via the phone. Just make sure that we can identify who you are. um our staff clock on my right will read the uh hearing notice. You uh your
representative will um will conduct the application at at the um microphone. Anyone in favor may speak for up to five minutes. Then I will read or summarize all letters that we receive. And then
anyone against the application um or has a question can speak for up to five minutes as well. The applicant can rebut any testimony or anything that was in those letters. Um, board members will direct questions to anyone present, hear
further information, close the public hearing, deliberate and vote on the application. All votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. I would just ask you right now to shut off any gadget
that makes any noise whatsoever. And if you have any uh conversations, please take them outside. Um and so we're going to start, like I said, with a roll call vote with all members affirming their agreement with this form of meeting. Starting with David Vch.
>> Uh yes, David H. Vich, and I approve this format meeting. >> Ed Actton, I approve. >> David S. Nixon, I approve. >> Paul Simple, I approve. >> Lee Hubby, I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne, I approve. Virginia Fenwick I approve >> and Randy Pardash I approve as well. So
voting today will be uh regular member David V, David Nixon, Paul Simple, Associate Member Lee um HVY and member uh Jenny Fenwick. Um and we will start with uh a motion for minutes. Paul
>> um I'm going to leave the motion for minutes to others today because I was not present for those meetings. >> Okay. So, uh, Dave V and then Dave Nixon, maybe you can second. >> Sure. >> I excuse me. I move approval of the
minutes of uh, August 21st, 2025 as presented. >> I second that. >> Does anyone have any changes or additions, subtractions? >> Well, I have a question. So, Paul's name is listed here as being at that meeting. Should we take that out? I was at the I
think I was at the 21st but not the 28th. >> Oh, so we can still do it this way then. Yeah, good question though. >> Yep. Um, so roll call vote. >> Uh, I vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Paul, >> can you vote yes on the first?
>> I'll vote yes on 21. >> Okay. >> Yes. Jenny votes yes. >> Okay. So, now we will go to August 28th. That was already moved and seconded. So, um, does anyone have any changes on that one? Nope. Seeing none, okay?
>> Yes. >> And Mr. Nixon, >> yes. >> Uh, Lee, >> yes. Jenny votes yes. >> Okay. And I I vote yes as well because I was there. So, I think that's cool. Um, all right. So, Sarah, whenever you're
ready. Application number 25-049 Elizabeth English and Lee Williams care of Paul Maldune 3 693 Main Street Chattam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 67 school street also shown on the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 16C block 66 lot 38 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the via the demolition and reconstruction of the roof sunroom and deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is
located 8.5 ft from School Street and 13.9 ft from the Southerntherly Butter. The proposed uppermost level will be non-conforming and that it will be located 8.5 ft from School Street where 25 ft setback is required. The reconstructed sun room will be non-conforming and that it'll be located
14 feet from the Southerntherly Butter and the proposed deck will be non-conforming located 14.5 ft from the Southerntherly Butter where a 15t setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,850 ft 16.3% and the proposed building
coverage is 1,860 ft 16.4% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 11,397 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter
48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from January July 24th, 2025. >> Okay. So, um I think we have Mr. Maldun online. Welcome, sir. >> Thank you so much. >> What would you like to do?
>> We are continuing to work with the historic commission on a on a design that is going to be satisfactory uh in their mind. We're we're hoping to get the approval in our October 7th hearing and uh and then would look to continue the um the zoning application
uh to a later date. Sarah had mentioned December 7th. >> 127 December 4th. Oh, 124. >> December 4th. >> Okay. Paul, >> I'll move to grant the request to continuous to December 4, 2025.
>> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes. I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Okay, it's unanimous. We'll see you then. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay, Sarah. >> Application number 25-076, 560 Orleans Road, LLC, cariff Steven
Goldstein, 5 Oaklane, Larchmont, New York 10538. Owner of property located at 560 Orleans Road. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 13J, Block 7, lot G20. The applicant seeks to reconstruct a reconstruct a pre-existing
non-conforming private residential pier. The existing pier is non-conforming and that it is located over the abuter's property to the south. The proposed reconstructed pier will be non-conforming and that it will be located over the abut's property to the south where a 25 ft setback is required.
The property is located in R40 zoning district. Special permits required under Mass General law chapter 4A sections 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome Stephen Goldstein I presume. >> Yes, correct.
>> Thank you. Um I >> go for it. >> Uh we seek to replace as Sarah said the existing um pier. We are keeping the same footprint, the length, the width. Um, we are not replacing the float or
the ramp to the float, only the pier and the ramp on to the float. Um, any questions beyond what's already in the application or >> do you have a do you have a copy of the um the criteria? Did you get a copy of
the criteria um with your application? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. So, can you take a peek at the criteria and go through >> some that you think are that are applicable? >> I don't have it with me, but I know that Oh, thank you. >> Here you go.
>> Um, there we go. >> So, this is >> Well, I know you were concerned about u the public passage with the dock. Um the dock does have ladders on either side and a hinged railing to allow people to
go through. Um some of the other points were that it's too close to the property line. In fact, it crosses the property line and uh part of the pier is on the adjoining property. Um but that's through an easement which you have a
copy of. Um so um we have exclusive ownership of the entire dock. And so the one that's there now is falling apart, right? >> Yeah, basically. >> Yeah. So would you say that um it's going to um have a better impact on visual character?
>> Not only visual character, but also on the environment. Absolutely. >> Yeah. All right. Great. All right. So um I'll take it from here and I will ask if there's anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this
application. Is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor? Seeing none, I will read the three correspondences that we have all from uh the town of Chadam one way or another. Um on September 15,
2025, we received a note from um the department of natural re natural resources shellfish division. They reviewed the zoning board of appeals application for the pier. The proposed pier is located within map shellfish habitat.
Um though the area is designed as prohibited but the area is classified and it does not let's see an area that is classified prohibited when it does not meet the standards in respect to safe harvest for direct human
consumption. Okay. Um, next we have a note from uh national natural resources Karen Latin from the um the um conser conservation commission. They reviewed the plans.
Um the increase in elevation and extension of the ramp appear appropriate for the structure. And let's see, an analyst um is going to determine if the height end of the structure would the intertital zone would satisfy this accessibility or if
allowing the public to walk slightly higher along the bank around the structure would be an alternative to placing the ladder within the salt marsh. So you have to go back to them. No. Um, you should have a copy of the email that I received yesterday from D.
>> Okay. >> Um, we we only have four feet of height. Um, so you can't walk under it. >> Okay. >> And because of the property line issue, we can't allow access in the upland. >> Okay. >> So, the only alternative is the ladders.
>> All right. So we have uh a note another note from conservation that uh was received September 9th 2025. The applicant submitted a notice of intent. The project was heard on August 13th and on September 24th the project will be
conditioned to meet the performance standards. Okay, that was the key one. Very good. And then we have a note from the harbor master Jason Holm. He reviewed the application and we received this on September 10th, 2025. um and found that the proposed reconstruction of the existing
non-conforming pier will not interfere with navigation or oppose any public safety issue. The pier will also not interfere with any existing moorings within the area. So that's all good. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against this
application or has a question? Seeing none, are there any questions from the board? >> Nope. Nope. Only only question I have is are you not clamming in that area? Is that the prohibition? >> You're not allowed to do any kind of clamming in that area because of the
pollution that I gather came from upstream. Yes. >> Right. Thank you. >> Okay, then Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. Genie votes yes. >> Okay. So now we're going to do
deliberations. David Nixon, >> this would be an upgrade and uh there's no problem with the easement and all the rest of it. So, I would vote in favor. >> Ed, >> uh I as well um where it's located is sort of at the at the end of the river
there, so not much boat boat traffic or or shell fishing, I imagine. So, uh if I was voting, I'd vote yes. >> Mr. Mr. V. >> Yes, I supported it. It meets all the applicable criteria. and Jenny. >> Yeah, I thought the application was very
thorough from a compliance perspective. There's a lot to consider there. Um, and it does appear that it would be a wise thing to do. It's in need of repair. Uh, it needs to be higher. The images that were shown show that. Um, so I, uh,
believe it meets the criteria and I would support it. >> And Steve, >> yeah, I think it's a good idea. It looks like it's probably a safety issue for anybody who's even using it, either the homeowners or anybody that's trying to traverse it. So, I think it's a good idea and it's uh overdue looks like.
>> And Lee, >> yep, I agree with my colleagues. >> And Paul, >> I agree. We've got the input from the harbor master and the shellfish, so I think we have what we need. >> All right, then. Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Um what's the arrangement
that you have with your neighbor about when you're going to do construction and so forth? >> I have no arrangements as of now. Um we do have the right to cross through the property um both from their driveway and from my property for access. Though I
would gather um Beacon Marine Construction will be doing the work and they do most of their work from the water side. So, we probably won't even need to really traverse um along the sides. >> Okay. I'll move to approve the application as submitted.
>> Uh David seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> I'll vote yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> It's unanimous. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> See you next time. Next application is 25-074 John Andre's care of Christopher Cannon
owner of 86 Capri Lane. Sarah application number 25-074 John C. Andreas, care of Christopher Cannon, PO Box 2011, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 86 Capri Lane. Also shown on the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 13C, Block 30, lot C13. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot be the construction of an addition and deck. The proposed addition and deck will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial
alteration and under the second except clause of section 6 of Mass General Law chapter 48. Such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 2,211 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,630
ft where 2,900 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 29,000 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw.
>> Welcome sir. >> Good afternoon. Um I'm Chris Cannon the record and uh representing uh John and Tam Andress who uh I have here. So, um, we've also arranged, uh, if any questions get directed to John, there is
a microphone available to him, uh, just to make things a little easier. Um, we began this process, uh, actually several years ago and sort of got sidelined by COVID and, um, picked the project back up uh, about a year ago, not quite. And
uh projects basically remain the same which is we were looking to uh actually add uh a bedroom and an art studio. Um and uh the house was has always been a four bedroomedroom house. However, a den
that's always been used as a den with five foot uh glass doors uh is apparently the fourth bedroom that currently exists. So, uh, our idea is to, uh, take away that's abil the ability of that to be considered a
bedroom and relocate, uh, to a new bedroom on on the first floor in the addition. Um, I know that in in the, uh, uh, correspondences, the health agent has said that we would have to open that to six foot wide opening without doors.
and um you know, we're willing to do that, but I'd also like to discuss with her whether or not a deed restriction would be possible knowing that shortly down the line we're going to be coming to sewing the house and the potential there uh comes quickly to petition for a
fifth bedroom. So, uh we would ask that, you know, that that be open for discussions with uh the health agent. Um so the um you know basic gist of this is is really just to add a bedroom uh at at the first floor level and up above that
would be a uh uh an art studio and uh laundry and at the ground level uh we would have uh an extended garage area within the the existing house as a result of uh John's uh unfortunate uh
need to use a wheelchair. um we're going to add an elevator inside the house. So, that's sort of uh created us a need for us to push uh the width of this uh addition a little bit more than what we had originally done. We had originally
had 16 and I think it's now 18 feet. So, um so what we're looking to add on the ground is uh uh 414 uh square feet of added coverage. Uh so the coverage will go from uh as Sarah
said uh 2,211 up to two 2630 uh square feet where 2900 is uh permitted. Um so uh let me get to the criteria the
adequacy of the uh the site. Um, appendex 2 allows for 2900. Um, and so as I said, the increase is uh the 400 uh it's actually uh the increase is
419 square ft. Um, so you know, from a percentage standpoint, uh, we're adding about 1.9% of coverage where the maximum would be 12.8 of coverage. um the compatibility of the
size of proposed structure with neighboring properties. Well, the house next door is about the same size as what we're proposing this to be. Um most of the houses on the shoreline quite similar in in size, some bigger, some a little bit smaller, some twotory, some
more, some less. Uh the houses in the neighborhood uh primarily are on smaller lots. Uh many of the lots are even half the size of this lot. And so there's a mix of coverages and uh much more density as you uh come into this house,
but this house is surrounded by one house next door and then a lot of area around it and uh the oyster pond on the other side. So it actually uh is quite a bit of space and and so I think it's u um from a compatibility size it's it it
will be fine. um the extent of proposed increase in non-conforming nature um again as I said it increases uh 419 square feet or 1.9 uh% of building cover uh and uh falls
within the uh the 2900 allowed or permitted uh suitability of site uh including not limited to impact on neighboring properties or natural environment including slope uh vegetation I think it's uh nothing really changes
The site's quite suitable for uh for what we're doing. It's not in the flood zone. The flood zone it is flood zone adjacent. Um and uh but the lowest elevation I believe is around 13 or 14 where 11 is uh I think the uh the
adjacent flood zone the lowest actually 12 out in the oyster pond but 11 is the closest one. There is a depression nearby. Um so I think we're okay there. uh impact of scale sighting and mass on the neighborhood visual characterist
character. Um I don't think you'll even pick up on this. We're extending in the direction of all the other houses. So uh I just don't think there's any impact whatsoever there. Um compatibility of proposed use with neighboring uses that does not change. Um adequacy of method
of sewage disposal uh does not change. Uh of course during uh construction you know we'll do the normal typical things that one would do. uh the storage bin for materials and and for uh uh waste um
impact on uh traffic traffic flow and safety at the dead it's a dead end so no impact whatsoever and litter uh no impact uh again as I said we'll have a uh for construction purposes we'll have
uh a bin for any litter uh noise will be up to you I suppose to the condition when work can be done. Uh adequacy of utilities and other public services. Uh really no change. Uh the use of the house isn't really going to change. So they're all adequate. Uh visual impact
on neighborhood neighboring uses. Uh formula business irrelevant. So um and uh because it's not actually in the flood plane, uh I don't think the other two criteria are anything we need to speak to. >> Sounds good. Thank you. Is there anybody
here online that would like to speak in favor of the Yes, sir. Please step up to the mic. This is in favor. I know Brian Phillips 374 leans a road. I know I don't normally speak in favor for most of these projects, but um I
spend a considerable amount of time in a wheelchair. Um it makes life almost impossible. spent the last three days and um I think anything that he could do, you know, to help his life out would be uh welcomed. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else here are online that wishes
to speak in favor? >> Seeing none, I will now read the two correspondences that we have. First one's from Judith Giorgio, our health agent, received on 92325. She re she received the plans uh about the addition and dwelling um to the
dwelling including a new master bedroom and artist studio. The property has an existing fourbedroom dwelling um limit including the room labeled den TV room. This room must be modified to a six-foot cased opening with no doors
uh not to meet so it does it doesn't meet the definition of a bedroom as defined by the board of health. Um then we have a note from conservation. They tell us on uh September 9th, 2025, the applicant submitted a request to amend
an order of conditions the project was heard on April 2 and then again August 27th of 25 the project will be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act. That concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here or Microsoft teams
who wish to speak against this project? Oh, I has a question. >> No. Do would you like to speak to um Judith Giorgio's letter at all or we all start out with that? >> Um no. As I said, you know, u I was aware of that. Um had received a copy um
and uh you know, I'd like to be able to speak with her uh about the idea of of a deed restriction. um at least uh you know until uh we can you know settle whether or not uh when the sewers come
there could be another um bedroom >> uh at that point by petitioning. Um if we don't have to change the construction, it is glass doors there currently and it's a 5-ft glass door opening. Um if we don't need to change it, it seems a little silly to do it if
in two years, three years, four years there's going to be sewer and we could do that. You'll just deal with her and yeah, take it from there. >> That's what we'd like the the option to do is talk with her. >> Okay. Um, let's see. Where are we? Questions from the board. Lee, >> I have no questions. Steve,
>> I have no questions. >> Jenny, no questions. Paul, >> no questions. >> Anybody over here have any questions? >> Yes. Okay, then. >> Chris, um, the elevator stops at the first floor. To me, it would make sense
to have it go to the second floor, but if that happened, I'd be concerned about the machinery popping through the roof. Is that why it stops at the first floor? >> No, it actually goes to all floors. It goes from the basement all the way up to the top floor. And the equipment was
sized to uh I selected a company to do this that fits within the roof. >> Okay. Because >> I didn't want the equipment in the basement just in case they change the flood zones on us. Oh, well that's probably a good idea. Okay,
because uh when I look at the proposed second floor, there's nothing about the elevator. It just it's just there. It doesn't say anything. If you look at your plans, >> show an elevator on every floor.
I know, but >> right next to right underneath bath three. >> Oh, so >> it's not labeled elevator. >> Okay. But it does go to the third floor. >> It does. Yeah. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Okay. Which makes sense. >> Thank you. >> Y >> Okay. So, the elevator goes to all the floors. Yes.
>> And uh let's >> I have to add some levity in everything I do. Yeah. >> Bear with me. >> Um anyway, let's see. >> Jimmy Kimmel was looking for a part. >> Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I
can't stop it. I can't stop myself. Okay. So, Paul, >> I think it's Dave's elevator that doesn't go all the way to the top. I think that's I think that's the problem. >> Um, >> okay. I will move to approve of Excuse me. I'll move to move into uh
>> we would liberations close the hearing and move into liberations. >> Yep. Okay. >> Dave Beachs and votes yes. >> I vote yes. Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> Okay. So, now we're going to deliberate. So, let's just start it. Dave Beach's Ed and go this way. >> Um,
there's nothing not to like here. This This is a really skillful. When it's said and done, I don't think anybody's even noticed that it happened, basically, other than the occupants who will be very grateful. Um, no, nice job, Chris. I fully support it. Meets all of
our criteria. >> And Ed, >> yeah, I I do as well, and it it certainly meets our criteria and not detrimental to the neighborhood in any bit. I would agree it's not in any way detrimental to the neighborhood. And >> Paul, >> I agree with my colleagues. And
>> we as do I. >> As do I. >> Judy, >> uh, I do too. I just wanted to make a couple comments. I agree with Mr. Vch that the design, Chris, is really it looks like it doesn't look like it won't look like an addition. It's going to look like it was always part of the
house plan. Um, it's a large lot. I think it's a modest increase in building coverage. Um it's outside of the coastal bank and the wetlands. That's important, you know, being the proximity to the to the oyster pond and um I agree meets our criteria and it's a very nice project.
Thank you >> and you're keeping up with your reputation. So I that's what I've heard. So um all good Paul >> only got so many more years to work. So >> um I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I think probably the
standard conditions would apply. All construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.
p.m. only. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> And that's unanimous. Congratulations and we'll see you next time. >> Right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you for
coming. Now, the next application on page two here is um 91 Gillis Road, 25-078. Application number 25-078, the Thomas B. Gillis Senior 1991 Trust
Care of Zach Zachary Bazinski, 49 Herring Pond Road, Buzzards Bay, Mass 02532. Owner of property located at 91 Gillis Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 4B block 3, lot CG4. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or
change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the relocation of the existing cottage and construction of a new dwelling. The proposed dwelling will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration. And under the second accept clause of section 6 of Mass General Law,
chapter 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,6 ft, 5.4% and the propos proposed building coverage is 2,767 ft. 14.8% or 15% is the maximum allowed.
the law is non-conforming and that it contains 18,646 square feet of buildable upland where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. >> Welcome.
>> Welcome. Thank you. Uh for the record, Zachary Basinski, professional engineer, Bracken Engineering, uh here this afternoon on behalf of the applicants, Billy and Kate Shell. Um, as mentioned, project site is 91 Gillis Road, an existing developed single family house lot. Uh, the existing house on the
property was constructed in 1924 and the property in its current shape was, uh, laid out on a plan in 1936 all prior to zoning. So, um, initially we had reached out to building department, talked with staff about the project. Uh, we thought we had a buy right project initially.
Um, we do meet all the bulk and intensity requirements with this. Um we had done some research on some of the neighboring homes in the area and found out that because we have the existing non-conforming um lot with an existing structure, we triggered the requirements under 40A
section six and then sections uh 5B uh under the local u bylaw. So as mentioned, they're looking to um take the existing structure u from the property. They're going to be maintaining it and actually moving it across the street onto a vacant lot. Uh the applicant has worked with Ryder
Wilcox and gone through the historic commission and was granted permission through that. Um we're then going to be replacing it with a new structure. Um as mentioned will meet all sideyard, front yard setbacks, all bulk and intensity requirements. There is a coastal bank
and flood zone on the plan south of the lot. Um subject prop new building will be cited uh 51 ft or outside of the conservancy district. Um we recently um as of yesterday went through the conservation commission. Uh they closed the public hearing subject to um us
having a meeting with you guys and we're scheduled to be back in front of them on October 8th. So again, looking to rebuild a new three-bedroom house on the lot. Um currently comprised of a three-bedroom structure. Uh new house will be serviced by a new Title 5 septic system. Uh that's been cited on the
highest part of the lot and the furthest away to protect the um abuing resource areas. Uh the applicants are also um voluntarily installing a innovative alternative nitrogen reduction septic system uh to enhance the groundwater protection and protection of the
resource areas. Our project will be serviced by on-site dry wells. So that will increase or decrease uh storm water runoff in the property. And as you can see on the plan to the bottom, the colored areas, uh they're going to be replanting existing historic lawn areas
that were on the lot. Um, we're going to be replanting another 3,900 square feet, uh, with restoration and mitigation plantings. Um, these will all be native plantings, uh, very similar to the budding properties next door and carrying, um, again protecting the
downstream resource areas and the preserving the character of the area. Uh, so as for the criteria, um, adequacy and size of the lot, again, lot was laid out prior to zoning, uh, very similar to the neighboring homes next door. Um, and we're maintaining a single family use.
So, we believe it's in harmony with the neighborhood. Uh, it's incompatible in sizes. Again, project maximum coverage is 15%. We're at 14.8. So, we're under what's maximally allowed. Uh, the extent of the proposed increase in non-conformities. Um, no increase in
non-conformities. We're meeting all of the required setbacks and structure coverage requirements and law coverage requirements. uh suitability of the site including but all living to the neighborhood uh impacts again single family use in a single family neighborhood uh on the nature of the
environment um an improvement uh with the reduction of nitrogen increased storm water recharge on site uh the protection of the slopes and um resource areas as mentioned we're providing the mitigation plantings and that will further protect all the downstream
resource areas and runoff from the site as for the scale and size and mass of the building. Um, it's been designed as a two-story building in character with the neighborhood. Again, meets all the massing requirements and setbacks. I believe it, you can see the neighboring homes uh on the aerial that I provide
here. Uh, looks like it'll be in character with everything out there and in line with the um neighboring homes. uh compatible with the proposed use of the neighborhood and neighboring uses again residential adequacy of methods for sewage disposal again on-site
three-bedroom septic IIA and source of water and drainage um town water is in the area and storm water will be mitigated on site uh we don't see any impacts on traffic flow residential use in a residential neighborhood temporary noise and litter during construction but
we would have on-site um containers to contain all that and then there's adequacy of utilities ities already existing on the lot which would be maintained with the structure and then the last two with the flood plane. Um again it's elevation 13 our site is up and house will be up at elevation 40 so
we're going to be well above the flood plane in the area and that I'll turn it back over. >> All right well done. Thank you so much. Um at this point is uh there anybody here or Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If
so please make it known. In favor? >> Yes, sir. Please. >> Wait till you get to the mic. >> Okay. My name is Howard Belger and I live directly next door at 95 Gillis Road. We've reviewed the plans with uh
our proposed neighbors thoroughly went back and forth and we're good with it. >> Good to know. Thank you. Anybody else wishes to speak in favor online or in the room? Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. There are five. First
one from um the conservation commission received on September 9th, 2025. The applicant submitted a notice of intent on July 7th. The project was heard on July 23 and September 24th, and it'll be conditioned to meet the performance
standard. Next, we have a note from Judith Giorgio, the health agent. She received the plan to demolish and rebuild this property. The proposed three-bedroom dwelling will replace the existing three-bedroom cottage. The septic system must be relocated to
accommodate the proposed dwelling. Plans must be submitted for review and permit approval to the health department and uh let her know if you have any questions. Again, that was Judith Giorgio on 92323. Then we have a note from Christina
Basset from the um CHC and then she said that the board found that the property is historically significant but appreciated that the owners were saving the structure by moving it to another parcel and did not impose a demolition
delay. And that was received on September 9th, 2025. Then we have a letter from Christina Stevens uh received on September 25th, 2025. Please accept this letter as an expression of my highest support for the
approval of the project at 91 Gillis. Um I have seen the plans for the new home proposed by Katherine and Billy Kajil and I am in full support of this new home building project. We are one of the adjoining neighbors to this property as
we reside on 95 Gillis Road. I see this project as in keeping and an enhancement to the neighborhood and have no concerns or reservations about it. We sincerely appreciate the applicant's effort to in including the preservation of the existing classic Cape Cod cottage.
Again, as an abut, the project has my support and she gives her telephone number, which I will not necessarily need to disclose. Jack Gillis writes on September 15, 2025, uh, regarding the most recent
appeals application for the work to be done at 91 Gillis Road. We strongly support the application. This is again from John A. Gillis and Marilyn Mor Morm Gillis. We had direct abutters to 7 at 75 Gillis across the road uh at 90. We
have reviewed the plans and believe the project is totally in keeping with the other development on the road. In addition, we appreciate the effort the family is doing to preserve the current cottage rather than tearing it down. If you have any questions, uh, don't
hesitate to contact us. So, anybody here are on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against has a question. Now's the time. Yes, sir. >> Ryan Phillips, 374 Road. Um my question about the septic tank is that the one
that constantly is filtering like the ones they use in Wellfleet. >> It's a um has a blow unit with it and >> you have to go to the mic. >> Has a blower unit with it and it circulates. So it's a below grade. Yep. >> Oh, okay. Um All right. That was my question. Um
>> Okay, then. >> And then uh I guess I don't know. I think it's too big. I like the old cottage. Thanks. >> Just look across the street then. >> All right then. Uh, where are we? We are questions from the board. Are there any on this side? I'm going to do it that
way now. I'm going to look at this side. No questions on this side. Jenny, come on. >> Steve, go ahead. >> Um, I'm not sure this pertains to this application, but what becomes of the cottage once it's moved? Is it going to be rehabbed? Is it going to get
utilities? Is it going to be made ready for use? >> Yep. It's going to be reused as another single family house. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Paul, then >> uh I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave beat seconds and votes yes.
>> Yes. I'll vote yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. Okay. Then Jenny, if you want to start deliberations. >> Yeah. I want to comment on two things. Um, in particular, I appreciate saving and
relocating the cottage. Um, I think that's important. Um, and the historic commission, uh, is happy with that. And then I also appreciate that you moved it 51 ft from the coastal bank. I know it was currently at 49. Um, but I thought
that that was a nice um, I mean, we care about that and I thought that that was a nice thing to do. I know it's only two feet, but it's going the right direction. and I I did appreciate that. Um that's all I have right now. >> What about you, Steve? >> No, I think it's a good project. There
was, you know, good effort made to uh to meet all the criteria and to keep it out of the uh um the conservation area. So, I I think it's a good project. >> And Lee, >> yeah, I agree. Um first of all, what a beautiful spot. Um and I think it's a
great project. Um and I also appreciate you keeping the cottage and relocating it. It obviously is part of the family history, so it's important to have it stick around. So, um I will be voting in favor. >> And Dave Nixon,
>> I agree that um the saving of the Cape Cod Cottage and the new design, the combination of them is is wonderful. Great great location as
Lee said. Uh, in fact, it's a spectacular location when you get right down to it. It's not great. It's spectacular and all this well thought out. Definitely in favor. >> Yep. And uh, David Nixon, I mean David Vch and then Ed. Yeah, I certainly agree
with all the previous gorgeous spot and and uh I I know this probably isn't entirely possible, but I I I found myself um really appreciating the lawn as it is now. And it kind of wish that
they could keep it that way, but I I know you can't build a house and not disrupt everything, but it it really uh it really I loved it a lot. kind of the old Cape Cod lawn kind of thing. >> Um, so no, this is this is a um a great
project and I'm happy to support it. >> Yeah. And Ed, >> yeah, I agree with my colleagues. When I first looked at it and went through it, it seems like it was very well thought out and um so well done. >> Thank you, >> Paul. You know, we've seen a lot of
action on Gillis Road the last few years and uh it's certainly transitioning from what it has been uh that's good in some ways, bad in other ways, but uh it seems to me this is a good project that certainly meets our standards.
>> And I I agree with all of that and uh I thought your presentation was one of the best. you you identified yourself as a professional engineer and I heard that and I I saw that that you you certainly uh your education, training, background, experience was just what they needed for
this project. And uh with that, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. So I guess we've done that, haven't we? >> We did that. In that case, I'll >> move to agree. I'll move to uh approve the application uh with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or
at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed, no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. All votes yes.
>> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. Very good. It's unanimous. >> Thank you everyone. Appreciate the comments. Thank you. We are on our last application 45 minutes into the meeting and it's uh 25-08174
Palmer Drive. Sarah >> application number 25-081 Herman Sanchez and Aaron Mitchell care of George Riley 63 Brook Trail Road Brewster Bath 02631. Owners of property located at 74 Palmer Drive, also shown on the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 16G, block 52, lot P17. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of a partial second floor addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located
20.8 ft from the norly butter and 10.6 feet from the southernly butter. The proposed second floor addition will be non-conforming and that it will be loc located located 20.8 feet from the norly of butter where a 25 foot setback is required. The building coverage will
remain 2,117 square ft 16.13% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 13,127 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is
required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section six and section 5B of protective bylaw. Welcome, sir. >> Yeah, excuse me. Yeah, George Riley representing the Sanchez. I I'd like to pass this. >> You You can just leave it with the next
person. Leave them all and then they pass it down. It's uh I'll let you get away with it this time, but it's a new rule. >> New rule. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Um so the uh the lot is uh uh non-conforming and because of its size and the u the dimensional setbacks particularly to the northern property
line where it's the existing uh uh distance is uh 20 ft and 25 ft is required. That is the um major u uh dimensional uh uh where the building
will go over the uh recorded 25- ft setback. Uh otherwise the uh uh all the other construction and proposal is fits into the uh uh dimensional code.
The uh the project is to uh put a second story on a singlestory house. Uh it's a uh in some ways it looks uh uh more grandiose than I think it uh it
really actually is. It's a it's a small uh uh second story less than the square footage of the existing first floor. Uh it's less it's a less than twothirds the the size of the footprint of the first
floor. It's really two bedrooms and a hall. So I wanted to that's why I passed that out to see how sort of that modest ranch house the existing house is on that lot. And if you'll put up some of the uh butters across the street we have
pictures. There they are. You can see this one. the next one which is much more finished and and then the last one down there that they're all uh more substantial than this existing house. Um
and at the on the uh property lines around the back it's uh substantially buffered by large arborites, oak trees, pine trees running between 15 20 ft and the oak trees maybe 40 and 50 feet. So
it's unlikely that the second story will affect the privacy of any of the abutters around the back. So that um uh so if we could go back to the uh
elevations there. Yeah, there you go. So in the front there you can see the the approximately the line that runs through the second story windows is the height of the ridge of the current building. So
the addition is really just that third of the top that would go uh so it's you know it's got some extra windows that uh might be uh uh you know not like old Cape Cod but
but it's a it's a modest I think uh addition of a second story to give the people they have uh when they bought the house they had less children. Now they have two more children and they like a little more room. So that's uh that's
it. So if I if we go through the the criteria the adequ adequacy of the site uh I think uh since we're not expanding the footprint in any way it it seems to be
compatible to that. Uh it's certainly compatible to the size of the structures of the neighboring properties. Uh it's not going to change any of the slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, etc.
Uh and it's the as I say the scale of the proposal I think fits in what's uh happening in the neighborhood. I there are very few uh actual onestory ranch style buildings in the whole
neighborhood. They're all either a story and a half or two stories. Um noise and litter not affected. Utilities not affected. Visual impact to the neighborhood. As I say, they're not being they won't be
able to see the house as much from the back or the sides. and uh it's not going to inhibit anyone's view I don't think uh utilities and public service uh all adequate
and I think that's that's it so >> okay then >> that's my presentation >> very good thank you very much is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of the application
seeing none I will read the one single correspondence that we received from the health agent. Judith Giorgio tells us on 92325 she reviewed the plan to add an addition to the dwelling including a new second floor relocating two bedrooms. The
property is an existing three-bedroom dwelling and will remain three bedrooms. I have no concerns. Anybody here on Microsoft Teams have a question or wishes to speak against? Now's the time?
No. Okay. Questions from the board. We'll start again with Jenny. >> Um, Mr. Riley, what's the current the height of the current house? >> Oh, it's I don't know. It's um
Let's see. It's about it's about 10 feet below what the ridge elevation there is now. So I think it's uh probably like uh uh 18 to 20 ft something like that. >> And so the height of the proposed house is 2510.
>> Yeah. So it's probably Yeah. 17. I don't I'm not >> okay. I didn't have it on the plan and so I'm trying to figure it out. But I know this uh the proposed building is around 10 foot which is a floor >> higher than the existing building.
>> Okay. >> So I would guess 18 feet would probably be close. >> Okay. It just um from the images it just looks you know a lot taller. I mean, >> yes, that's why that's why I was trying to >> Yeah. >> say that the elevations don't give it a
more grandiose look than fact it is, >> right? Yeah. No. Um and then um the the dormers, I guess you'd call them the dormers. They're quite exaggerated. That that's something that the client wants this this extra light upstairs.
>> Extra light. That's right. That's why they don't you you mentioned not traditional Cape Cod and this is this isn't a design hearing. This is a zoning hearing but I just wanted to um understand that a little bit better because um you aren't changing I mean coverage is already over a little bit but you aren't changing it.
>> We're not changing it. No. And actually the second story is is diminished from the footprint of the first story. So it's really not going to make I don't think a significant the the reason I think that the coverage is over at the
moment was because there was a change in the >> way the >> overhangs. >> Yes. Yeah. The overhangs were included and then that put it over. But before you know originally when it was built that they took it from the side the corners
>> and that was well within the 15%. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, that that's all I have right now. Thank you. >> Questions, Mr. Beach? >> No, I have no questions right now. >> Ed, questions? >> Um, no, no, no questions. >> And Mr. Nixon, any questions?
>> No questions. >> And Paul, any questions? >> No questions. >> Lee, I actually do have one question. Um, excuse me. Um, regarding the mechanicals, any plans for AC units, condensers outside? >> No.
>> No. Okay. No AC in the house. >> Oh. Uh, there's an already an AC condenser that there that's grandfathered in on the side. >> So, you're just going to keep that? Okay. I didn't see that on the plan. And Steve, >> I have no questions. >> All right, then. Paul,
>> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. David seconds and votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> All right, then. Deliberations. Uh, Steve, >> if you were voting, >> if I were voting, well, you know, it
this does meet our most of our criteria that the setbacks aren't changing. It's not getting any closer to no property. So, you're going straight up basically for this. >> And, you know, the coverage is a little bit over, but that's also not changing. And that was because maybe some of the
rules changed along the way, right? >> So, I have no issues with this. >> Okay. Jenny, do you >> I mean I I think it's um it has a lot of mass to it. I I'm not
saying that it doesn't necessarily the house across the street, which we're very familiar with this part of Palmer Avenue, Palmer Drive. Uh the house across the street, the images that and you know that we have here and that we know of and that we've seen before. Um I I can't say it's
not fitting in to that bottom of the of the street. Um but it it does look topheavy to me and I think it's the large dormers and the mass but this is um that that's my one concern but I um want to hear what my colleagues have to say. >> Sure.
>> Mr. V deliberations. >> Uh well I think I see I I think I see what Jenny's commenting about and what you're saying. Um I But, you know, I kind of think, well, you know, you could change the dormer,
etc., and and probably somewhat visually reduce the the apparent massing. But I I'm I don't think I would go that far to say I we I mean I think it's when it's all said and done, it's going to kind of knit together pretty well and
not um look to be um larger or looming more or anything than the buildings across the street that he's he's um provided the photos of. I I I will say I I'll say that this is one where you know especially looking at these elevations
the these are tough elevations to read and uh this is one where if we had like a rendering I think it would be easier to see I guess I'm >> I'm going to say I'm speaking from my visual rendering of it I guess uh as a
because the drawings themselves it it's kind of a at first you go wow That's that's a lot going on here, but I don't think it's going to come across that way uh constructed this way and completed. >> So, I'll support it. >> Ed,
>> um I I I do agree a bit with Jenny. When you first look at it, it does look perhaps a little bit overpowering, but as I look at the the right elevation and the left elevation and the crosssections,
I I tend to agree with Mr. O'Reilly. think I think the elevations perhaps are making it look a little bit more substantial than it is. I think, you know, this neighborhood is transitioning and this is a a different style of architecture, but as you drive through
the neighborhood, there's there's quite a bit of different styles of architecture. And um I think uh you know, at first it um it may um first glance it may look a little bit large, but I I think it'll fit in with
the neighborhood, and I don't think it'll be substantially detrimental in any way. >> Randy, could I just Sure. just quickly add to what I was saying, but could look any more what what you don't see in the elevations here is you don't see the the ins and outs. Um, so you have those two
the the two ends of the dormer on the front that stick out a little bit, but then in between it's set back and set in a little bit. I think there's actually a balcony there. And so when you start when you're trying to see that and then this piece, it's not all in the plane that it looks like on the drawing.
Thanks, >> Mr. Nixon. >> Well, I'm not wild about this at all. Uh, as I've said a number of times, uh, height to me is really when you're in the street or the neighbors houses and whatnot, not when you're right in front
of the house. And this is built up because of the lot. And I understand that. And it's not going over in my mind. It just visually doesn't work. But to me, uh, the main problem is the mass of this house. Um, it it comes across
and at 4,000 I think that was the number. Yeah, the the gross floor area was 4,100. It comes across as a big house for that neighborhood and it really is and uh to me it pushes me over
that line where it is substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Lee, I didn't go to you yet, right? Um well, you know, uh I know that this
property has come before us, um before and it had a completely different application, completely different design and roof line. Um I couldn't find my paperwork, but I did watch the um hearing
>> and the roof on the previous application had more of a slope had more of an overhang and that really contributed to the mass. >> Yes, >> I believe this one is better. Um the way the roof line is, it's much better. Um,
I pref I personally would prefer to see a a Cape Cod style dormer, but this house is a little different from a traditional cape. Um, uh, I think this is a is is better. Um,
and I do believe that the this plan helps reduce the mass. Um, >> all right. And Paul, your thoughts? >> Well, uh, as I mentioned on Gillis Road, we've seen Palmer Drive quite a bit in
the last few, uh, years and, uh, we've seen a change in the in the structures. Uh, we've gone from small stuff to big stuff really, uh, consistently. Um, I would be inclined to to go with Dave
uh uh Nixon and and Jenny with this uh with the exception that uh we really do have some large homes across the street. um that we have uh some of which we've approved, some of which pre-existed
um such that I think that given the comment that Dave V made about the perspective that you have of the ins and outs of the building, which is not conveyed so well by these particular drawings, um that this probably would fit in with
what's across the street in terms of overall size and volume. So I think on that basis I would vote to approve. >> All right. So I'm not voting which is probably a good thing for you because um I agree with Mr. Nixon and and Jenny. Um
I also think that the house across the street you well sort of like diagonal. It's on a much bigger lot. And I you know I think this is a really important street and we we outlined that before. We've had drama series for Palmer Drive
here and we we're always trying to keep that street to traditional, you know, and we only have so much uh to say about design, but I think that this design um is has too much mass and I would not vote in favor of if I had been voting.
Um, I think that they could try to come back with something with more traditional dormers. Um, because I think it stands out and I do think that this is an important street and um I um we'll have to see how would you like us to take a straw vote to see how Jenny and
Dave are going to vote. >> Um and then you could always come back within you know in less than two years. So Jenny, how how would you vote? >> I don't I I do think it's too much mass. So I I would I would not support it.
>> And David, uh, you would, right? >> Yeah, I think I indicated that I could support it. >> And Mr. Nixon, you wouldn't. No. So that's two and you need four. Uh, uh, Paul, you >> said I would I would support it. >> And Lee would. >> Yeah, I would support it.
>> Yeah. So you needed more than that, >> right? >> So you want to come back another day? >> Well, of course. Right. But I I do think that uh you I knew it was going to be the dormers and I I thought about trying to take the
clear story windows off the over the top to make it look but but uh but I think uh what I said originally is that it's not a massive it's only two bedrooms upstairs. It's not a McMansion. And although the detailing makes it look a
little bit overmased, I think u I I think when it was built you'd probably never notice it. Well, >> there we go. >> All right. So, when do you when when work? Sarah, uh George, would you like how long will it take you to redesign? Are you looking to >> Probably I would think uh we could do it
in three or four weeks. Is that possible? >> How does December 4th sound? >> December >> 4th. It's so far in the future. I can't know. Uh >> we're awful busy. That's why. >> Yeah, it's before. But I can do it. Yes.
December 4th. >> On November 20th. It's up to Sarah because you know >> I mean we have to continue to a date specific. Currently we have four applications already on our November 20th agenda and one on our December 4th. >> Whatever is convene for the board. >> Good answer.
>> So it's up to you guys. >> Well, >> I'll move to grant the requested continuence to December 4, 2025. Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. Okay. It's unanimous. We'll see you next time. >> All right. Bye bye. >> All right then. Looks like we just need
a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll move to adjourn. David seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And yes. And uh what time is it? >> 3:07 p.m. How do you like that?
>> Good night, Chadam. Good.